Confederate Statue Removers Are Soldier Haters

[Pogo]

---- and you know damn well it's not about "statues" since nobody in Charlottesville said boo about Robert E. Lee -- it was all "alt-right" and "we hate Jews" and Nazi this and Klan that and Vanguard the other thing and "you will not replace us" and beating a random black man with poles --- in other words the same bullshit that was going on a hundred years ago with the lynchings and the race riots and people being whipped for being Jewish or Catholic. They're trying to revive a time when that shit was powerful enough TO erect statues and monuments. It's all a grand hate-wank.

It's not Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson that is the operative symbol here. The symbol is the epoch they're trying to resurrect. The era when the Klan was resurrected and signed up millions. The era when black people were expected to lower their eyes and sit in the back and use separate water fountains. THAT is what it's about.

All you're doing here is repeating the MSM's presentation of it (and that of the facist anifada and other counterprotestors). you're trying to make it be about the policies you dislike. But once again, the SOLDIERS dIdn't make the policies. The protesters were protesting about the statue of SOLDIER. That remains the issue.

Liberals have a habit of ranting forever after they've changed the subject to what they want to talk about and how they want it to be viewed. ha ha ...amusing

Know who that statue they took down in Durham North Carolna the other day was of?

Nobody.

It was a generic Confederate soldier. Not for a person but for a concept. And that concept was the Lost Cause revisionism which was going on at that time, which is what I've been describing here. It's recorded history. All these various monuments and statues were put up roughly 1895-1925 when racism, and lynchings, and Civil War revisionism (Dixon's "The Clansman", 1905) and "Birth of a Nation" film (1915), and the revived Klan, were dominant.

Those activists who dragged that statue down specifically called it a "symbol of white supremacy". That was the point. Not who the statue represents, which is, again, nobody.

Know when that statue went up? 1924. The same year the Klan was most active, marching, and getting local and state officials elected. Those activists also threw a hood over another similar local statue called "Silent Sam". That one went up in 1913 and was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy --- the same revisionist Lost Cause group that put the plaque up for the birthplace of the Klan.

They were doing a lot of that at the time. Because it was the Lost Cause era.

That's the theme here. It's got nothing to do with statues directly, or "who owned slaves". It's got to do with the mentality that put those monuments there, and why they did so. It's about the action, not the artifact.

Matter of fact this sordid period of our history is the same period I write about frequently on this site, such as the Tulsa Race Riots (1921); the East St. Louis Riots and the Civil Rights Silent March (1917), and the peak activity of Lynching in America as well as the Klan itself. It's all related. These monuments are being targeted as a symbol of that period and mentality whence they sprang.

It's a period sorely neglected and intentionally forgotten in our history books..... which introduces the supreme irony that, in contrast to the whinings of the Lost Cause people that tries to suggest removing a statue is somehow "removing history" --- it's the statue-removers who by their actions are actually calling attention to a history that had been whitewashed. So arguably what they're doing, to the extent their reasoning is understood, is literally the opposite of removing history.

The Lost Cause monuments were basically put there to symbolically mask the real history; taking them down serves to symbolically remove that mask.

>> The 1890s, when the UDC was founded and monument building began in earnest, was a decade of virulent racism across the South. Not content to disenfranchise black men, Southern whites went on a lynching spree. Ida B. Wells, the African American journalist and anti-lynching crusader, documented 186 lynchings of black people in 1893 alone — mostly men but women and children, too. As she wrote in her account “The Red Record,” these “scenes of unusual brutality failed to have any visible effect upon the humane sentiments of the people of our land.” *

Violence against blacks only increased in the early decades of the 20th century. In addition to continued lynching across the South, the Atlanta race riot of 1906 demonstrated how seriously white men took their supremacy over African Americans: An estimated 10,000 white men and boys in the city went after black men, beating dozens to death and injuring hundreds more.

Amid that brutality, the pace of Confederate monument construction quickened. The UDC and other like-minded heritage organizations were intent on honoring the Confederate generation and establishing a revisionist history of what they called the War Between the States. According to this Lost Cause mythology, the South went to war to defend states’ rights, slavery was essentially a benevolent institution that imparted Christianity to African “savages,” and, while the Confederates were defeated, theirs was a just cause and those who fought were heroes. The Daughters regarded the Ku Klux Klan, which had been founded to resist Reconstruction, as a heroic organization, necessary to return order to the South. Order, of course, meant the use of violence to subdue newly freed blacks.

During the era of Jim Crow, Confederate monuments could be placed most anywhere. Some were in cemeteries or parks, but far more were erected on the grounds of local and state courthouses. These monuments, then, not only represented reverence for soldiers who fought in a war to defend slavery, they also made a very pointed statement about the rule of white supremacy: All who enter the courthouse are subject to the laws of white men. << -- Karen Cox, Professor of History, UNC Charlotte, author of “Goat Castle: A True Story of Murder, Race, and the Gothic South”
​

* - see the aforementioned thread "Lynching in America"

 

[Pogo]

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple. Example - in Baltimore, statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall" Jackson were removed in the middle of the night, the mayor knowing there would be anger and opposition. So much for representitive government.

These actions are a disgrace, and an abusive insult to every soldier serving in the military, and every military veteran in America (if not the whole world). The often heard (idiotic) excuse that the statues represent hate, racism, and bigotry, is ludicrous, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The mayor of Tampa, Florida, Bob Buckhorn has said this same thing, and even donated $1,000 to have a Civil War monument removed, which has statues of 2 low ranked soldiers in it. Problem with the mayor's ridiculous excuse, is that whatever racism or bigotry existed, it came from POLITICIANS. But statues being removed in Tampa, Charlottesville, Lexington, KY and other places, are not of politicians. They are statues of SOLDIERS. They were people who made no policies of any kind. They simply followed orders, and did the toughest job anyone could do. Many lost their lives. They had nothing to do with the policies of slavery, secession, confederacy, etc. In fact, many of these soldiers (especially the generals) served in the military for many years before the Civil War even started.

These statue removals are despicable acts perpetrated by military and soldier haters, most of whom never served themselves. They are dishonoring these fine, courageous heroes, who went to war, defending their states, counties, and towns from attackers. These governors, mayors, etc should be voted out of office, or recalled if possible. Soldier haters have no business to be holding political office.

For every one of these soldiers whose statues are removed, 3 of theirs should be put up in response. Make the statue removing, soldier haters pay for their bad behavior.

And one more thing -- about these monuments and "soldiers"...............

​

A larger image would be nice if available, but if it's hard to read it says:

"Accepting the arbitrament of war, they preserved the Anglo-Saxon civilization of the South and became master builders in a re-united country"​

Maybe not so re-united huh. Can't imagine why.
Ironically at the bottom it says "Veritas Vincit" ("truth prevails"). Again, maybe not.

That's in Charlotte. Doesn't get much more right to the point I just made about historical context than that. Same time period.

 

[Pogo]

From the News & Observer (Raleigh):

>> “The important thing to remember here is that, in 1924, we are a couple of decades after the great triumph of white supremacy (in North Carolina) in the late 19th century,” said James Leloudis, a professor of history at UNC Chapel Hill.

“A bi-racial government had been elected in 1894 and what followed was a vicious white supremacy campaign in 1898 and 1900, which culminated in the Wilmington Coup and the disenfranchisement of the black male voter.”

Leloudis notes that there were two main flurries of Civil War monuments being erected across the South. North Carolina, which has 90 such monuments, is tied with Georgia for the second most Civil War monuments. Virginia has the most.

The first wave came in the 1870s and 1880s and those monuments were typically placed in graveyards as symbols of mourning. The next wave came in the 1910s and ’20s and were aimed at public squares.

They were forward-looking monuments rather than backward-looking ones, especially at a time in which black Americans were beginning to make progress, Leloudis said, noting that a block away from the Durham monument, Black Wall Street* was thriving in 1924.

“The monuments that went up in the ’teens and 20s had a far more overtly political purpose,” he said. “If you look at the dedication addresses, speaker after speaker is very clear that those monuments are aimed at the rising generation of young North Carolinians who were coming of age, and who were born after the white supremacy struggles at the end of the 19th century.

“The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule.”

... In 1913, at the dedication of the Silent Sam statue on the UNC campus, Julian Carr, a wealthy tobacco and textiles manufacturer from Durham, praised Confederate soldiers for preserving white hierarchy.

“The present generation ... scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South,” Carr said at the time.<<
​

* (the reference to "Black Wall Street" was to a black business community in Durham although not called by that name until the 1950s, not to be confused with the Tulsa Black Wall Street destroyed by the 1921 Tulsa race riot)

 

[JQPublic1]

The statues are of traitors who took up arms against their country. fail.

Got a reading comprehension problem ? Again, soldiers aren't traitors, and it was politicians who went against the Union. Got it ?

The soldiers had a choice...

 

[xband]

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple. Example - in Baltimore, statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall" Jackson were removed in the middle of the night, the mayor knowing there would be anger and opposition. So much for representitive government.

These actions are a disgrace, and an abusive insult to every soldier serving in the military, and every military veteran in America (if not the whole world). The often heard (idiotic) excuse that the statues represent hate, racism, and bigotry, is ludicrous, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The mayor of Tampa, Florida, Bob Buckhorn has said this same thing, and even donated $1,000 to have a Civil War monument removed, which has statues of 2 low ranked soldiers in it. Problem with the mayor's ridiculous excuse, is that whatever racism or bigotry existed, it came from POLITICIANS. But statues being removed in Tampa, Charlottesville, Lexington, KY and other places, are not of politicians. They are statues of SOLDIERS. They were people who made no policies of any kind. They simply followed orders, and did the toughest job anyone could do. Many lost their lives. They had nothing to do with the policies of slavery, secession, confederacy, etc. In fact, many of these soldiers (especially the generals) served in the military for many years before the Civil War even started.

These statue removals are despicable acts perpetrated by military and soldier haters, most of whom never served themselves. They are dishonoring these fine, courageous heroes, who went to war, defending their states, counties, and towns from attackers. These governors, mayors, etc should be voted out of office, or recalled if possible. Soldier haters have no business to be holding political office.

For every one of these soldiers whose statues are removed, 3 of theirs should be put up in response. Make the statue removing, soldier haters pay for their bad behavior.

You have to respect the enemy or you do not respect yourself. Go to Upper Mongolia and tear down the Statue of Genghis Khan.

 

[protectionist]

The soldiers had a choice...

They could allow themselves to be shot at, have their buildings and bridges destroyed, churches burned down, farms (crops & animals) destroyed, ..............or they could DEFEND themselves and shoot back. And if YOU were the one having all this done to you, you would do what. Calmly say "thank you" ?

 

[protectionist]

So the generals of the con-federacy were too stupid to know they were committing treason and killing what should have been their fellow Americans?

Just as it is with our current laws, self-defense isn't "killing" (ie murder). It is a legitimate reason for shooting back at who is attacking you.

And the south's independence isn't much different than the independence of 1776 (from England)

Would you say the revolutionaries of the 13 English colonies "were committing treason" ?

 

[protectionist]

. Did Washington and Jefferson commit treason against the United States and lead armies to kill fellow Americans?

DODGE! I asked you my question first.

No, but they did commit treason against England, did they not ?

PS - Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners (in contrast to the Confederate soldiers who were not) Do you want to remove the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial too ?

 

[protectionist]

His military service to an enemy of the United States. An enemy that killed more Americans than in any other war we've ever had.

But he fought DEFENSIVELY, where soldiers generally, traveled hundreds of miles to attack him in his territory. And again he did not make the policies. He only received orders, from those who did. Why are you not talking about those people ?

 

[protectionist]

Lee was just a little bit pregnant.

He was 0% policy-maker.

 

[JQPublic1]

The soldiers had a choice...

They could allow themselves to be shot at, have their buildings and bridges destroyed, churches burned down, farms (crops & animals) destroyed, ..............or they could DEFEND themselves and shoot back. And if YOU were the one having all this done to you, you would do what. Calmly say "thank you" ?

There was another Choice. Since most of them did not own slaves they could have refused to leave the union. They could have rebelled against the rich slave holders and said no. But instead they drank the kool- aid and went off to fight and die for the fiends who brought slaves in to take their jobs. If the masses of average southerners had stayed loyal to the union the Civil War would never have happened...they would nevet have had to worry about having their homes razed or any of the other consequences of losing a war.

 

[MindWars]

Has anyone asked the question why the Civil War monuments were not a problem during Obama’s 8 years as President?

One final thought, George Soros was Jew who betrayed his own people and collaborated with Nazis.



The Nazification of the United States

 

[protectionist]

There was another Choice. Since most of them did not own slaves they could have refused to leave the union. They could have rebelled against the rich slave holders and said no. But instead they drank the kool- aid and went off to fight and die for the fiends who brought slaves in to take their jobs. If the masses of average southerners had stayed loyal to the union the Civil War would never have happened...they would nevet have had to worry about having their homes razed or any of the other consequences of losing a war.

I'm catching up on dozens of old posts right now. No time for new conversations now.. See you LATER

 

[bodecea]

So the generals of the con-federacy were too stupid to know they were committing treason and killing what should have been their fellow Americans?

Just as it is with our current laws, self-defense isn't "killing" (ie murder). It is a legitimate reason for shooting back at who is attacking you.

And the south's independence isn't much different than the independence of 1776 (from England)

Would you say the revolutionaries of the 13 English colonies "were committing treason" ?

It's not self-defense when you START the war.

As for the 13 colonies....it was considered treason by England and guess what would have happened to the leaders if England had prevailed.

The North was too lenient on the traitor con-federate leaders after the war.

 

[protectionist]

Excellent question...why did the White supremacy movement MAKE the Charlottesville statue of Lee their business?

Nobody (other than them) really cares. The issue with the soldier statues is disrespect and dishonoring of soldiers. Not anything about white supremacy, Please stay on topic.

 

[protectionist]

It's not self-defense when you START the war.

As for the 13 colonies....it was considered treason by England and guess what would have happened to the leaders if England had prevailed.

The North was too lenient on the traitor con-federate leaders after the war.

So you're going to talk at me after I told you I'm too busy for you now ? That's like attacking someone whose hands are tied. Have a little integrity.

 

[protectionist]

The problem is not with the soldiers, but the regime they fought to defend.

I wonder why some people can't get this simple fact in their thick skulls.

 

[protectionist]

And that regime's leaders.

Then go rag at the "regime's leaders" (ie. POLITICIANS), and stop messing with the SOLDIERS. Unless you consider yourself a soldier hater.

 

[protectionist]

---- and you know damn well it's not about "statues" since nobody in Charlottesville said boo about Robert E. Lee -- it was all "alt-right" and "we hate Jews" and Nazi this and Klan that and Vanguard the other thing and "you will not replace us" and beating a random black man with poles --- in other words the same bullshit that was going on a hundred years ago with the lynchings and the race riots and people being whipped for being Jewish or Catholic. They're trying to revive a time when that shit was powerful enough TO erect statues and monuments. It's all a grand hate-wank.

It's not Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson that is the operative symbol here. The symbol is the epoch they're trying to resurrect. The era when the Klan was resurrected and signed up millions. The era when black people were expected to lower their eyes and sit in the back and use separate water fountains. THAT is what it's about.

All you're doing here is repeating the MSM's presentation of it (and that of the facist anifada and other counterprotestors). you're trying to make it be about the policies you dislike. But once again, the SOLDIERS dIdn't make the policies. The protesters were protesting about the statue of SOLDIER. That remains the issue.

Liberals have a habit of ranting forever after they've changed the subject to what they want to talk about and how they want it to be viewed. ha ha ...amusing

Know who that statue they took down in Durham North Carolna the other day was of?

Nobody.

It was a generic Confederate soldier. Not for a person but for a concept. And that concept was the Lost Cause revisionism which was going on at that time, which is what I've been describing here. It's recorded history. All these various monuments and statues were put up roughly 1895-1925 when racism, and lynchings, and Civil War revisionism (Dixon's "The Clansman", 1905) and "Birth of a Nation" film (1915), and the revived Klan, were dominant.

Those activists who dragged that statue down specifically called it a "symbol of white supremacy". That was the point. Not who the statue represents, which is, again, nobody.

Know when that statue went up? 1924. The same year the Klan was most active, marching, and getting local and state officials elected. Those activists also threw a hood over another similar local statue called "Silent Sam". That one went up in 1913 and was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy --- the same revisionist Lost Cause group that put the plaque up for the birthplace of the Klan.

They were doing a lot of that at the time. Because it was the Lost Cause era.

Know what soldier was commemorated by the removed Liberty Place Monument, the first one the city of New Orleans took down?

None. It wasn't about a soldier or the Civil War at all --- it's about a white supremacist riot started by the White League, one of dozens of white supremacist groups started up in the defeated Confederacy. See what they all have in common.

That's the theme here. It's got nothing to do with statues directly, or "who owned slaves". It's got to do with the mentality that put those monuments there, and why they did so. It's about the action, not the artifact.

NO! That concept was for the individual foot soldier who went to war and fought, not your illustrious notion about white supremacy. As I just said, you are changing the subject to something evil and then declaring yourself the knight who is going to extinguish that evil. You can't do it, because the statues are statues of SOLDIERS, not the politicians who own the evils.

You know this, but you still think it's expedient to pretend you're fighting the good fight. Must be tiring doing what you're doing MR STRAW MAN.

 

[protectionist]

Matter of fact this sordid period of our history is the same period I write about frequently on this site, such as the Tulsa Race Riots (1921); the East St. Louis Riots and the Civil Rights Silent March (1917), and the peak activity of Lynching in America as well as the Klan itself. It's all related. These monuments are being targeted as a symbol of that period and mentality whence they sprang.

It's a period sorely neglected and intentionally forgotten in our history books..... which introduces the supreme irony that, in contrast to the whinings of the Lost Cause people that tries to suggest removing a statue is somehow "removing history" --- it's the statue-removers who by their actions are actually calling attention to a history that had been whitewashed. So arguably what they're doing, to the extent their reasoning is understood, is literally the opposite of removing history.

The Lost Cause monuments were basically put there to symbolically mask the real history; taking them down serves to symbolically remove that mask.